The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Cekoviu]

seething so hard rn

tumblr? LMAO did u time travel here from 2016?
and ostro just agreed with me that they're MRAs so make of that what you will

boy if i had a nickel for every time i've been called sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic by people who've run out of arguments...

no, i noted in the original post he's quoting that i didn't care to argue the point and i haven't done so with gallo either for the same underlying reason. it's just that ostro's writing style simply really gets on my nerves and i figured i'd use my response as a chance to help with that.

A cavalcade of non-arguments as smug as they are hollow.

are u seeing proct's posts? i don't know how you expect me to respond with anything other than that. it's not like there are any solid points there to refute with genuine argumentation.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

I believe his point is that many of your opinions have found themselves squarely within Poe's Law. That is to say, your posts read like a parody of feminist beliefs.

or maybe he is simply autistic(-adjacent) (or an aquarius?) and doesnt actually know what's going on or really understand the foundations of feminist theory. at least, that's the explanation i'm going with.

...

I'm sure.

[Proctopeo]

boy if i had a nickel for every time i've been called sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic by people who've run out of arguments...

you could try not being sexist
also, you say I've run out of arguments, but you outright admitted that you don't have any arguments left against Ostro, so...

you're pretty clearly using this as a slightly more convoluted version of the age-old "you made a spelling error so I'll use that to ignore your entire argument" tactic lmao

no, i noted in the original post he's quoting that i didn't care to argue the point and i haven't done so with gallo either for the same underlying reason. it's just that ostro's writing style simply really gets on my nerves and i figured i'd use my response as a chance to help with that.

[x] doubt

A cavalcade of non-arguments as smug as they are hollow.

are u seeing proct's posts? i don't know how you expect me to respond with anything other than that. it's not like there are any solid points there to refute with genuine argumentation.

You're not giving me anything to actually work with here, jsyk. honestly there's not all that much left to say that hasn't already been said

I could be doing more than stating basic, obvious facts about your rhetoric (ie that it's sexist and distanced from reality), but I'm not inclined to sink too much mental energy into NSG

[Cekoviu]

boy if i had a nickel for every time i've been called sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic by people who've run out of arguments...

you could try not being sexist
also, you say I've run out of arguments, but you outright admitted that you don't have any arguments left against Ostro, so...

when did i say that?

no, i noted in the original post he's quoting that i didn't care to argue the point and i haven't done so with gallo either for the same underlying reason. it's just that ostro's writing style simply really gets on my nerves and i figured i'd use my response as a chance to help with that.

[x] doubt

this is a really weird hill for you to die on. do you really find my persuasive writing so beautiful that it feels like a slight to be deprived of it here? is that why you're so upset?

are u seeing proct's posts? i don't know how you expect me to respond with anything other than that. it's not like there are any solid points there to refute with genuine argumentation.

You're not giving me anything to actually work with here, jsyk. honestly there's not all that much left to say that hasn't already been said

I could be doing more than stating basic, obvious facts about your rhetoric (ie that it's sexist and distanced from reality), but I'm not inclined to sink too much mental energy into NSG

right, so i'm not sure how i'm supposed to provide a substantive refutation when you don't have the energy to do any substantive argumentation. we're just feeding into each other's inability to provide more detail. which is fine with me honestly - it takes me like an hour to respond to a gallo effortpost and this takes 2 minutes, so i'm not complaining. but apparently the peanut gallery over here has a problem with that!

[Proctopeo]

you could try not being sexist
also, you say I've run out of arguments, but you outright admitted that you don't have any arguments left against Ostro, so...

when did i say that?

"I don't care to argue the point" comes off as pretty close to that ngl

[x] doubt

this is a really weird hill for you to die on. do you really find my persuasive writing so beautiful that it feels like a slight to be deprived of it here? is that why you're so upset?

no? tone down that ego for a minute - it's clear that you don't care to argue the point because you can't, and you're using his sloppy writing style as a hackneyed smokescreen

You're not giving me anything to actually work with here, jsyk. honestly there's not all that much left to say that hasn't already been said

I could be doing more than stating basic, obvious facts about your rhetoric (ie that it's sexist and distanced from reality), but I'm not inclined to sink too much mental energy into NSG

right, so i'm not sure how i'm supposed to provide a substantive refutation when you don't have the energy to do any substantive argumentation. we're just feeding into each other's inability to provide more detail. which is fine with me honestly - it takes me like an hour to respond to a gallo effortpost and this takes 2 minutes, so i'm not complaining. but apparently the peanut gallery over here has a problem with that!

well
this whole discussion here kicked off after I responded to one of your posts, that despite its length, had very little of substance (which is what I had initially addressed)
I haven't actually fully read your other effortpost(s) so maybe they're more substantial; I just skimmed them to get the gist

[Cekoviu]

when did i say that?

"I don't care to argue the point" comes off as pretty close to that ngl

the reason i wrote that is because i already knew at the time of writing that the extent of the counterarguments provided would be:
- gallo deciding groups cannot count as parties because he has no fucking idea how to comprehend any social unit at a higher level of organization than the individual, and possibly deciding to make even more of a clown out of himself by arguing that men are historically oppressed
- if ostro ended up online, he'd probably do his MO, which is to read the first sentence or two, then use those to make a long series of more and more wildly incorrect assumptions about the rest of the content and go off on a retarded tangent based on those assumptions
both of which, i would note, were indeed what the counterarguments were. both are simply pointless to argue with because they are based on intentional misinterpretations, lies, and/or irreconcilable differences in belief systems. so the point of that section was not to present an argument meant to be debated, because the debate would be useless and stupid, the point was simple illustration and color for the audience.

this is a really weird hill for you to die on. do you really find my persuasive writing so beautiful that it feels like a slight to be deprived of it here? is that why you're so upset?

no? tone down that ego for a minute - it's clear that you don't care to argue the point because you can't, and you're using his sloppy writing style as a hackneyed smokescreen

see above. i could let ostro offload the task of reading comprehension onto me and waste huge amounts of time explaining in great detail things that he could figure out if he simply took 5 minutes to thoroughly read and consider what i wrote, or i could do something productive like simply teaching him a few tips about how to make it not borderline physically painful to read the dreck he's constantly spewing.

right, so i'm not sure how i'm supposed to provide a substantive refutation when you don't have the energy to do any substantive argumentation. we're just feeding into each other's inability to provide more detail. which is fine with me honestly - it takes me like an hour to respond to a gallo effortpost and this takes 2 minutes, so i'm not complaining. but apparently the peanut gallery over here has a problem with that!

well
this whole discussion here kicked off after I responded to one of your posts, that despite its length, had very little of substance (which is what I had initially addressed)
I haven't actually fully read your other effortpost(s) so maybe they're more substantial; I just skimmed them to get the gist

okay

[Proctopeo]

"I don't care to argue the point" comes off as pretty close to that ngl

the reason i wrote that is because i already knew at the time of writing that the extent of the counterarguments provided would be:
- gallo deciding groups cannot count as parties because he has no fucking idea how to comprehend any social unit at a higher level of organization than the individual, and possibly deciding to make even more of a clown out of himself by arguing that men are historically oppressed
- if ostro ended up online, he'd probably do his MO, which is to read the first sentence or two, then use those to make a long series of more and more wildly incorrect assumptions about the rest of the content and go off on a retarded tangent based on those assumptions
both of which, i would note, were indeed what the counterarguments were. both are simply pointless to argue with because they are based on intentional misinterpretations, lies, and/or irreconcilable differences in belief systems. so the point of that section was not to present an argument meant to be debated, because the debate would be useless and stupid, the point was simple illustration and color for the audience.

this reads as "I know my argument is bad, but I'm going to accuse the others of being too stupid to understand it instead of working to make it coherent"
you are right on one thing, though - this massive disagreement is due to wildly irreconcilable differences in beliefs and worldviews. you believe in an eon-spanning global conspiracy to oppress you, and you demand massive privileges to compensate. gallo, ostro, and I all believe broadly in actual equality (though I'm sure we differ on several details).

or to put it more simply, you're a supremacist, but nobody else here is

no? tone down that ego for a minute - it's clear that you don't care to argue the point because you can't, and you're using his sloppy writing style as a hackneyed smokescreen

see above. i could let ostro offload the task of reading comprehension onto me and waste huge amounts of time explaining in great detail things that he could figure out if he simply took 5 minutes to thoroughly read and consider what i wrote, or i could do something productive like simply teaching him a few tips about how to make it not borderline physically painful to read the dreck he's constantly spewing.

It's really not a "task" to read Ostro's posts? they're like, marginally more difficult than any standard text wall, if that. reading them might require you to think critically, which is something you definitely don't want to do

edit: now that I've thought about it for a bit, radical feminism is pretty much just inceldom but for women

[Galloism]

All of these items are related to criminal justice. When I was talking about voter suppression for [5], I was talking about voter suppression against men because they are men, which takes the form of felon disenfranchisement laws. Keep in mind, while this was intended to hit black men in particular (there's a very good documentary on how when we struck down grandfather clauses and vote tests a lot of misdemeanors got upgraded to felonies so we could keep disenfranchising the same group), it also hits men as a class in particular, to the point women have the majority of political power and have for decades.

again u need to think about, is this oppression against men or is this oppression that hits more men because of external factors? i simply see no reason to believe that those measured would be implemented on the basis that they would disenfranchise men. it's simply that felons are an easy group to disenfranchise if what you actually want to do is disenfranchise ethnic minorities but you don't want to be honest about it; the fact that they're male is not why they're chosen.

And this wasn't done to black people as a group. It was done to black men, and we didn't care about the blowback (on other minority men especially, but also other men). Being men was a major causal factor here.

additionally, constituting the majority of the voter base does not mean having the majority of political power in any way, shape, or form. did black people in apartheid south africa have the majority of political power?

You DO know that during apartheid in South Africa black people did not have the majority of the voter base right? Because they were denied the right to vote, right? First disproportionately and then completely? You have read a thing or two about apartheid right? Did you ever look at how it worked?

Regarding the last item which is slavery of men, the biggest "common factor" is that men are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced for the same crimes as women, and serve longer sentences once there (extending their slavery). We need to correct this.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

this is only possible to view as a common factor if you're living in an alternate reality where men are committing serious crimes at the same rate as women. the rate disparity in who commits what crimes is fundamentally what leads to any sort of sentencing disparity later on, those factors simply slightly amplify this at each stage (your own paper admits this). and men are just vastly more likely to commit serious crimes in the first place. like, to the point that the author had to drop multiple large categories of crimes because their perpetrators are over 95% male and they lacked enough data to compare the sexes.

Indeed. Tells you something about how much discrimination there is against men.

Yes. Unironically. Because then men would be in control of their own reproduction. How much worse would women's life be without the pill? Same thing.

thats awesome. have fun convincing men to do that

Should be easy.

For example, one study revealed that more than 70 percent of men think men should take more responsibility for contraception [8]. Furthermore, there is evidence that men are not only interested in using current male contraceptives [16, 17], but also that between 44 and 83 percent of men would use hormonal methods [18-20].

This compares to 26% of women who use hormonal birth control now (second tab - methods, pill 21%, non-pill hormonal 5%).

i'm sorry but citing the ACLU = immediate disqualification from being treated as a serious person with genuine motivations

I'm sorry you hate human rights.

The alternative is to teach women to put their own lives on the line for strange men they don't know, because by and large this doesn't happen now. Granted, I agree that would be a better result, but efforts in this regard have fallen flat, so it's time you at least stop giving if all you're going to get is nothing back.

thats not really how "giving" works ? like sure it would be lovely if we all had the courage to defend one another but we don't & just because one group can't/won't do it back doesn't mean they deserve to die?

I'm not saying they deserve to die. I'm saying you don't have to put your life or health on the line for strangers. Especially when those strangers aren't willing to do so for you.

I wish everyone the best.

well i'm not quite sure that this shows what you think it does; really, this can easily lend itself to men being victimized at a lower rate and just not falling victim to other serious issues that affect women. i'll admit this is an area where i don't know a whole ton so i'm not sure if that's right, but that anecdote doesn't really mean a whole lot on its own. i will say that because war rape is typically a means of inflicting large-scale indiscriminate terror on members of specific ethnic groups or nations, rather than being for sexual reasons, i wouldn't be surprised or anything if it was applied equally to men and women, unlike ordinary rape. or even more to men, since they're more likely to be the ones actively fighting. i just don't think you've presented a strong argument for any statistical trend here.

but again, regardless of the exact percentages, it's unconscionable for the UN to only be funding assistance of female vics here, especially since it's a category of rape that's got pretty much nothing to do with gender.

No, that's not a statistical trend. But I agree that sexist help from UN orgs is not ok. Statistical trend wasn't the point of my post, but to point out these men are being left in the lurch because of their gender.

So, this fails on two grounds.

1) You are applying a individualist situation into a group dynamic. This creates an apples to oranges comparison between two different types of problems.
2) Your supposition that this is a scenario that applies to the group dynamics in question is ALSO wrong and ahistorical.

To wit: women and have been beating their husbands and men beating their wives into time immemorial. Notably, the result of such a thing that you seem to be low-key defending is the older model of how we treated such situations. The older expectation is that men would dominate their wives and not the other way around, but when that did not happen (which we have no idea the prevalence of due to the following), society decided to side with the abuser and join in the abuse against the male spouse being beaten.

boring + still holding to my not engaging! except for this part:

In renaissance France, men beaten by their wives would be made to ride a donkey backwards holding its tail while being subject to derision and contempt. In England, they used a cart instead but the principle was the same. When women beat their husbands, society enlisted to help them further their abuse. Yes, I have a source for this.

thats freaking hilarious how can u be opposed to that

And today, well... things haven't changed all that much really.

yeah they have!!! i don't see these things happening!! i want to see men riding donkeys backwards around my neighborhood!!

Keep in mind, you're suggesting that domestic violence victims should be paraded around town and mocked by the town.

I mean, you agreed it was a problem that DV shelters do this to domestic violence victims when I showed evidence of them literally mocking abused men. I see the problem now: you think their scale wasn't large enough, and we need to go back hundreds of years to when this was crowd sourced to the public at large instead of being the dominion of staffers at domestic violence services.

How monstrous.

The industry as it stands is really bad for both men and women sex workers. But people trying to ban it are doing so from a place that women can't choose for themselves whether or not to engage in sex work because we don't respect that they should be allowed to make their own choices if they are choices we disagree with.

Basically... we need unions and enforcement when it comes to things like nonconsensual pornography. But it doesn't mean ban men and women from choosing lines of work we don't agree with.

people's choices don't happen in a vacuum. they're always going to affect others and sometimes they'll be themselves affected by something not chosen. this so strongly applies to sex work that the term "choice" can hardly be used with respect to it in any situation. many women who've created onlyfans or done other camming sort of things often profess to have chosen, but in actuality were lied to by representatives of the company they're working for about economic benefits to it. essentially, those are pyramid schemes, and we don't act like people who get swindled into pyramid schemes are totally responsible for it. others are young and naive and don't quite understand how deeply harmful it is to them, but later come out with details of their negative experiences, like mia khalifa. and pretty much every woman in our society is absorbing through osmosis the pervasive commodification and objectification of women throughout her entire life and learning that that's how she's meant to be, basically just internalizing the male gaze. so "choices" to engage in sex work are often also informed by that unconscious self-hatred and are a manifestation of male control even when they outwardly appear to be choice.

then even assuming that hypothetically we somehow had a woman with no prior conditioning who genuinely just decided it would be fun to do pornography (and i do want to stress that this is imaginary and impossible in our society, but for the sake of argument), the problem is that that still has an effect on others even if not her. the media she produces will still teach the consumers that women are sex objects, it'll be just one singular entry in the dozens a man will browse through masturbating. there's fundamentally no way to make pornography ethical.

what you're doing is trying to weasel out of the fact that not only does there exist a form of legalized rape which outclasses any examples you can come up with of male victims of traditional rape and abuse being derided in terms of sheer scope, but it's also a multibillion dollar global industry which seeps into multiple aspects of everyday life, and it exists because of men. and no matter how hard you try you cannot spin that as women oppressing men without sounding like elliot rodgers, so you're just glossing past it.

So first, legalized rape is an oxymoron, but I know what you meant.
Second, the notion that women are so filled with self hatred and male control they can't actually make their own choices unless they are the choices you choose FOR them is extremely misogynistic. It's an implication that women are not full adults and cannot make their own choices, which is a far older more and notion.
Third, evidence we have shows that consumers of pornography are more likely to see women as equals than non-viewers, and while correlation does not equal causation, when correlation cuts the opposite way as the unsupported claim of causation (that porn makes men view women as "sex objects", or less than equals - objects aren't equals) it should cause everyone to pause and reconsider their original position.
Fourth, I'm not sure why you consider it rape for women to engage in pornography but not men to engage in pornography. This seems weird and unsupported. Unless it relates to #2 - you viewing women as less than full adults.
Fifth, I don't actually have any idea what the relative numbers are of men who engage in pornography vs women. Do you have any stats handy?

Such as?

like i already said, you're trying to get people to agree with the concept that men are oppressed by a female-centric social milieu.

I wouldn't use the term "female-centric social milieu". Life (and gender roles) are complicated beyond "women are oppressed".

I really don't think the constant harping on false accusations is the right tack, except where those false accusations are part of a pattern of abuse (which happens - men getting raped by women sometimes report that women threaten that if they report they will charge them with rape, and they'll not only be raped but go to jail).

well that's good at least.

I also don't think the "social security unfairness" tack is a good one - that men pay more into social security and women get more out. A lot of this is actually a function of another factor: women live longer and are given more health resources. Another is that men are unfairly punished based on sex for missing work for family matters, and thus therefore far more of them work harder and wind up getting the financial rewards of that. Missing that is like when the street floods from a broken water main, and you focus on pumping the street out and ignore the water main. The big thing is that the water main is spilling water into the street.

honestly i'm not sure if i've ever seen an MRA bring up this point. i could picture them doing so but i've never seen one point to this as a huge issue.

Also, while I do agree that divorce remains a very difficult issue where men are discriminated against heavily by the system, their approach to the problem is simplistic to the point of being entirely unhelpful.

LOL i suppose i should expect that opinion from you given your occupation. i'm curious as to what you think they get wrong, if you agree on the principle that it's discriminatory against men.

One of the big things that happens in divorce (a LOT in my experience), is that assets are divided in a 50/50 or 70/30 split (usually favoring women) while debt is pushed 100% or nearly so onto the man. So if you have a family with 200,000 in assets and 170,000 in debt, the TYPICAL case is that the wife gets 100,000-150,000 in assets, while men get 150,000-170,000 of the debt. They even do weird things where the woman gets the house (typically the largest asset of the marriage) but the man gets the debt for the house and must keep paying it while she lives there until if/when she sells. And it's her choice when to sell.

And this takes place in states without alimony, by the way, so it's not even in the form of alimony, so even back when alimony was deductible to the payor and income to the payee, that didn't apply to that arrangement. This is also over and above any child support they have.

This type of debt fuckery is a major issue in divorce and we need some rules around it.

You add to that the new TCJA (thanks Trump) where alimony isn't deductible to the payor or income to the payee for divorces after 2018, and you get a situation where (typically) men have to live on a tiny amount of actual income but still pay a large amount of taxes, while the (typically) women have little to declare and can actually get huge tax refunds and no tax due as a result.

It's a functionally inequitable situation originally, and the tax effects make it even worse.

but honestly like if those three are it, that's just not enough to make you not an MRA. none of those beliefs are integral - maybe the divorce one, but you seem to be disagreeing more with their rhetoric than their conclusions on that - to MRAism, just beliefs held by a majority of MRAs. like, going back to the analogy with me and radical feminism - i very much disagree with the way that most radfems tend to approach the distinction or lack thereof between gender and sex, i find the common approach to be inelegant and not nuanced enough given the newness and ambiguity of the subject. but also that still doesn't mean i'm not a radical feminist, because that approach is not inherently tied to radical feminism, it's just something that most radical feminists tend to take. so sure i'm a dissident with respect to that but i'm sure anyone who sees my opinions on other gender-related issues will clearly identify me as a radical feminist and they wouldn't really be wrong.

Those were a few examples. Just grabbing the wikipedia really quick as a quick reference -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

1) Men shouldn't have their children adopted out against their will or without their knowledge. Seems reasonable. Not sure about the exact fix to that.
2) Anti-dowry laws - I don't know enough about this.
3) Child custody - complicated. The current system is untenable, and fathers are treated like second class parents, but the focus on child support is largely missing the point entirely.
4) Circumcision (AKA, male genital mutilation) - This is straight up reasonable. Don't start cutting your children's genitals. It shoudl be obvious.
5) Divorce - Believe I mentioned this one.
6) Domestic violence - also mentioned this one
7) Education - Think i mentioned this one.
Female privilege - I used to talk about "female privilege", but after what we learned about how privilege language influences peoples' view of the poor (very negatively - viewing the poor as more blameworthy and undeserving of help), I have decided to drop this language altogether. It's a bad idea.
9) Governmental structures - this one is obvious. There's severe systemic discrimination against men in various aspects of government.
10) Health - I touched on this. I don't agree with Farrell about industrialization and its effects.
11) Homelessness - I didn't mention this one, but it's a slam dunk. Most studies show that true homelessness (IE, people who do not have a roof under which to sleep) is predominantly male. Women are more likely to be "home hopping" however. IE, they don't have a home of their own but society steps up to give them places to sleep that it doesn't for men.
12) Incarceration - talked about this one. It's another slam dunk.
13) Military conscription - talked about this one. We both agree it should be equalized, but we disagree on what it looks like. Notably, you side with MRAs generally, while I side against.
14) Paternity fraud - so, i didn't mention this one. This is a thing that happens, but beyond the courts correcting it when discovered in an appropriate manner, I don't think it's a huge deal for activism. Misattributed paternity (malicious or accidental) is around 1-3% of births, and while that's not 0, I don't think it's a huge issue.
15) Rape - we have talked about this at great length.
16) Reproductive Rights - I believe I mentioned this, that I think men should have the same legal rights here as women.
17) Social security and Insurance - I touched on this from the social security angle, but I didn't on insurance. Women pay the same rates as men for health insurance, even though they use it more often (this is an actuarial thing) and thus are a net drain on the pool. But I actually don't think it's a problem, and we should mandate gender and race equality in insurance in general. I think we should do the same for car insurance, life insurance, accidental death and dismembership insurance, disability insurance, etc.
18) Suicide - didn't touch on this, but men are far far more likely to commit suicide. There's multiple reasons for this, and it is an area worth activism.

Just a few pages ago I copied my analysis of a 3 year summation of 3 successive studies.

oh ok i straight up never saw that that's the problem. this thread moves fast.

anyway this is profoundly dishonest and also just plain stupid. your own statistics demonstrate that men experience every form of victimization (merging 'forced to penetrate' with plain rape) at about half the rate that women do when you aren't cherrypicking specific years. you've just magically decided that unstable yearly data is more reliable because of the assumption, which you don't back up with any examples or data, that men would lie to the survey about lifetime experiences but not yearly experiences.

Actually, you'll notice every single year men are raped at a similar rate to women. Look it over again - you didn't read very well.

well yeah duh that's the same for women too

Yeppers. Turns out men and women aren't that different after all.

[Cekoviu]

the reason i wrote that is because i already knew at the time of writing that the extent of the counterarguments provided would be:
- gallo deciding groups cannot count as parties because he has no fucking idea how to comprehend any social unit at a higher level of organization than the individual, and possibly deciding to make even more of a clown out of himself by arguing that men are historically oppressed
- if ostro ended up online, he'd probably do his MO, which is to read the first sentence or two, then use those to make a long series of more and more wildly incorrect assumptions about the rest of the content and go off on a retarded tangent based on those assumptions
both of which, i would note, were indeed what the counterarguments were. both are simply pointless to argue with because they are based on intentional misinterpretations, lies, and/or irreconcilable differences in belief systems. so the point of that section was not to present an argument meant to be debated, because the debate would be useless and stupid, the point was simple illustration and color for the audience.

this reads as "I know my argument is bad, but I'm going to accuse the others of being too stupid to understand it instead of working to make it coherent"

you aren't getting this. it's literally Not An Argument. that entire portion of my post is not supposed to be interpreted as an argument. it's an illustration of the logical flow between principles with the express purpose being entertainment, which i literally said there.

you are right on one thing, though - this massive disagreement is due to wildly irreconcilable differences in beliefs and worldviews. you believe in an eon-spanning global conspiracy to oppress you,

are you guys like actually stupid or are you intentionally wildly misconstruing the nature of the patriarchy because i genuinely cannot tell which one it is

and you demand massive privileges to compensate.

god, the window you guys unwittingly provide into the male worldview with this shit. you people are genuinely are so fucking sick in the head, you so hate the idea of treating women as anything more than sex and food machines, that you think someone advocating for ensuring women have safe and free access to healthcare, are treated properly in the workplace, are safe doing the same basic things as men, and are not raped on camera for an audience of millions of sex addicted freaks is "DEMANDING MASSIVE PRIVILEGES". every time one of you posts, i become just a little bit more misandrist as it becomes more and more terrifyingly clear to me how genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy men are when confronted with issues that affect anyone other than other men.

gallo, ostro, and I all believe broadly in actual equality (though I'm sure we differ on several details).

or to put it more simply, you're a supremacist, but nobody else here is

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

see above. i could let ostro offload the task of reading comprehension onto me and waste huge amounts of time explaining in great detail things that he could figure out if he simply took 5 minutes to thoroughly read and consider what i wrote, or i could do something productive like simply teaching him a few tips about how to make it not borderline physically painful to read the dreck he's constantly spewing.

It's really not a "task" to read Ostro's posts? they're like, marginally more difficult than any standard text wall, if that.

it's not a "task" or whatever, sure, but it's very unpleasant and just not something i want to do, solely because of his formatting and writing style. again, i have no issues reading what gallo writes because even though gallo is generally writing a bunch of bull shit that i disagree with just like ostro, he always writes it in an articulate and easy to read manner.

reading them might require you to think critically, which is something you definitely don't want to do

this coming from proctopeo

edit: now that I've thought about it for a bit, radical feminism is pretty much just inceldom but for women

femceldom is its own thing and there is some overlap between femcels and radical feminism but they aren't fundamentally linked, speaking as some1 who is both but for separate reasons (i.e., i would still believe in radical feminism if god magically dropped a boyfriend into my lap) & who knows a lot of representatives of both groups. a lot of radical feminists and possibly even the majority either have a boyfriend/husband or are lesbians, and they've got no interest in arguing about how evil men are because of not wanting to sex them like incels do. radfems' criticism of men and patriarchy is fundamentally rooted in different motivations from incels' criticism of women and "gynocracy".

[Proctopeo]

you are right on one thing, though - this massive disagreement is due to wildly irreconcilable differences in beliefs and worldviews. you believe in an eon-spanning global conspiracy to oppress you,

are you guys like actually stupid or are you intentionally wildly misconstruing the nature of the patriarchy because i genuinely cannot tell which one it is

it's sexist, conspiratorial hokum, and generally comes prepackaged with a hundred-liter drum of victim blaming

and you demand massive privileges to compensate.

god, the window you guys unwittingly provide into the male worldview with this shit. you people are genuinely are so fucking sick in the head, you so hate the idea of treating women as anything more than sex and food machines, that you think someone advocating for ensuring women have safe and free access to healthcare, are treated properly in the workplace, are safe doing the same basic things as men, and are not raped on camera for an audience of millions of sex addicted freaks is "DEMANDING MASSIVE PRIVILEGES". every time one of you posts, i become just a little bit more misandrist as it becomes more and more terrifyingly clear to me how genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy men are when confronted with issues that affect anyone other than other men.

So you're a supremacist who lies about the nature of her own ideology when pressured, and calls people "stupid" and "sick in the head" for calling you out on your bullshit, and your last sentence is either the strongest projection I've ever seen, or the least self-aware thing I've ever seen someone type unironically. You're genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy when you're confronted with issues that affect anyone other than women. And you ascribe this to half the human population, excluding yourself, due to your own monumental sexism. Fucking alright then.

Makes me wonder what kind of meltdown you'd have if a woman was saying everything I am. It also makes me wonder if I was on to something when considering a comparison to virulent antisemitism...

It's really not a "task" to read Ostro's posts? they're like, marginally more difficult than any standard text wall, if that.

it's not a "task" or whatever, sure, but it's very unpleasant and just not something i want to do, solely because of his formatting and writing style. again, i have no issues reading what gallo writes because even though gallo is generally writing a bunch of bull shit that i disagree with just like ostro, he always writes it in an articulate and easy to read manner.

It's not exactly unpleasant either. And it's not like you actually read what Gallo writes, either.

reading them might require you to think critically, which is something you definitely don't want to do

this coming from proctopeo

I do think critically, yes. I think critically enough to not blindly parrot talking points that sound like they came from the insane ramblings of the chick who almost killed Andy Warhol. If you thought critically, you wouldn't be a radfem.

edit: now that I've thought about it for a bit, radical feminism is pretty much just inceldom but for women

femceldom is its own thing and there is some overlap between femcels and radical feminism but they aren't fundamentally linked, speaking as some1 who is both but for separate reasons (i.e., i would still believe in radical feminism if god magically dropped a boyfriend into my lap) & who knows a lot of representatives of both groups. a lot of radical feminists and possibly even the majority either have a boyfriend/husband or are lesbians, and they've got no interest in arguing about how evil men are because of not wanting to sex them like incels do. radfems' criticism of men and patriarchy is fundamentally rooted in different motivations from incels' criticism of women and "gynocracy".

The hate, the outrage, and the perpetual victim attitude are one and the same. To quote someone else, "[Radical feminists] are basically the Alex Jones of gender conflicts." It's also noteworthy how both are self-sustaining - the lack of interest from the target sex that the vitriolic hate creates only serves to amplify the hatred and push people deeper into echo chambers.

Though you being an incel explains a lot more than I think you intended it to. You admitted, in totality, the exact nature of your worldview, and how deeply flawed it is. I could make some jokes about it, but honestly it's mostly just sad.

also, like... aren't you trans? radfems hate trans women (even if they're not specifically TERFs). is this a bit? are you being held at gunpoint by some british lady? signal "lasagna" in morse code if that's the case

[Cekoviu]

are you guys like actually stupid or are you intentionally wildly misconstruing the nature of the patriarchy because i genuinely cannot tell which one it is

it's sexist, conspiratorial hokum, and generally comes prepackaged with a hundred-liter drum of victim blaming

ok so the former then?

god, the window you guys unwittingly provide into the male worldview with this shit. you people are genuinely are so fucking sick in the head, you so hate the idea of treating women as anything more than sex and food machines, that you think someone advocating for ensuring women have safe and free access to healthcare, are treated properly in the workplace, are safe doing the same basic things as men, and are not raped on camera for an audience of millions of sex addicted freaks is "DEMANDING MASSIVE PRIVILEGES". every time one of you posts, i become just a little bit more misandrist as it becomes more and more terrifyingly clear to me how genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy men are when confronted with issues that affect anyone other than other men.

So you're a supremacist who lies about the nature of her own ideology when pressured, and calls people "stupid" and "sick in the head" for calling you out on your bullshit, and your last sentence is either the strongest projection I've ever seen, or the least self-aware thing I've ever seen someone type unironically. You're genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy when you're confronted with issues that affect anyone other than women. And you ascribe this to half the human population, excluding yourself, due to your own monumental sexism. Fucking alright then.

i find it interesting you believe you know more about my ideology than i do. i've barely even laid out the details of my own goals here - most of what i do is arguing with MRAs, since they're the ones who occupy the "feminist" thread, rather than talking about my own beliefs - so it's pretty odd that you're going to act like you know my beliefs aren't what i say. i've got no reason to lie, either; i care not one single bit about what MRAs think of me or the political correctness of my ideology.

while it is true that i've grown pretty apathetic towards men's suffering, this has only become the case after years of constantly dealing with men who have continually shown me they don't care about me or any other woman even if i care about them. compassion for people who will constantly take advantage of that in order to make life worse for you and everybody like you is kind of pointless.

Makes me wonder what kind of meltdown you'd have if a woman was saying everything I am. It also makes me wonder if I was on to something when considering a comparison to virulent antisemitism...

a woman wouldn't be saying everything you are because your perspective is fundamentally male. if i were to see a woman saying that my immediate reaction would be skepticism over whether she's actually a woman (seeing as we are online and people do lie here) and then sadness over the degree of self-hatred that she would have had to have acquired to say things like this.

it's not a "task" or whatever, sure, but it's very unpleasant and just not something i want to do, solely because of his formatting and writing style. again, i have no issues reading what gallo writes because even though gallo is generally writing a bunch of bull shit that i disagree with just like ostro, he always writes it in an articulate and easy to read manner.

It's not exactly unpleasant either. And it's not like you actually read what Gallo writes, either.

um you earlier said you only even skimmed over my responses to him so i don't know how u think u have the right to say this either but if u had read my responses i'm fairly certain you wouldn't find any issues with the quality of my reading

this coming from proctopeo

I do think critically, yes. I think critically enough to not blindly parrot talking points that sound like they came from the insane ramblings of the chick who almost killed Andy Warhol. If you thought critically, you wouldn't be a radfem.

valerie solanas is very unfairly maligned & i think her points make a lot of sense once you get past that one mistake

radical feminism is inherently based in the critical analysis of social structures, it's the very definition of critical thinking

femceldom is its own thing and there is some overlap between femcels and radical feminism but they aren't fundamentally linked, speaking as some1 who is both but for separate reasons (i.e., i would still believe in radical feminism if god magically dropped a boyfriend into my lap) & who knows a lot of representatives of both groups. a lot of radical feminists and possibly even the majority either have a boyfriend/husband or are lesbians, and they've got no interest in arguing about how evil men are because of not wanting to sex them like incels do. radfems' criticism of men and patriarchy is fundamentally rooted in different motivations from incels' criticism of women and "gynocracy".

The hate, the outrage, and the perpetual victim attitude are one and the same. To quote someone else, "[Radical feminists] are basically the Alex Jones of gender conflicts." It's also noteworthy how both are self-sustaining - the lack of interest from the target sex that the vitriolic hate creates only serves to amplify the hatred and push people deeper into echo chambers.

again there are many radical feminists who do have boyfriends and husbands or are lesbians and therefore are already getting plenty of male attention or don't need any, so no, lack of interest from men isn't going to do really much of anything to radical feminists or even necessarily occur.

Though you being an incel explains a lot more than I think you intended it to. You admitted, in totality, the exact nature of your worldview, and how deeply flawed it is. I could make some jokes about it, but honestly it's mostly just sad.

it really doesn't explain that much, no. like, if a perfect-in-every-way boyfriend magically materialized on my bed right this second, i would still believe basically all the same things.

also, like... aren't you trans? radfems hate trans women (even if they're not specifically TERFs). is this a bit? are you being held at gunpoint by some british lady? signal "lasagna" in morse code if that's the case

overly simplistic attitudes on the topic are certainly pretty common within the community, which i pointed out as one point of disagreement i hold with the majority of radfems and one reason i'm typically reluctant to call myself a radical feminist, but it's still by no means universal and i don't really find it that pertinent an issue. there really is a lot more ideological diversity in radical and marxist feminist circles than you seem to believe; i think it'd really do you well to actually speak to the people you claim to know so much about and see how they actually feel instead of making assumptions which seem to be based on posts from kotakuinaction or something rather than actual experience.

[Cekoviu]

stuff

no way im going to have the energy respond to this tonight and im not doing it tomorrow because its my birthday and im absolutely not spending the 1 day a year thats about me doing This bull crap so i just wanted2 let u know that it will be a Hot second before i write back

[Galloism]

stuff

no way im going to have the energy respond to this tonight and im not doing it tomorrow because its my birthday and im absolutely not spending the 1 day a year thats about me doing This bull crap so i just wanted2 let u know that it will be a Hot second before i write back

It must be nice to have a day that gets to be about you instead of your entire existence being based around constant service to others.

Enjoy your birthday.

[New haven america]

I mean, all you had to read was Ce saying that they went to college and became a self admitted radfem to understand why this endeavor is akin to smashing your head into a brick wall and hoping it falls. Those types of college groups are echochambers that only gives them the most biased and negative opinions and ideas.

Also, the irony being that more women attend college than men. Women are more likely to attend something that allows for better opportunity in life and networking than men, when in reality, it should be reverse if you go by Ce's current worldview of men only wanting to hold women down.

[Odreria]

I mean, all you had to read was Ce saying that they went to college and became a self admitted radfem to understand why this endeavor is akin to smashing your head into a brick wall and hoping it falls. Those types of organizations are echochambers that only gives them the most biased and negative opinions and ideas.

Also, the irony being that more women attend college than men> Women are more likely to attend something that allows for better opportunity in life and networking than men, when in reality, it should be reverse if you go by Ce's current worldview of men only wanting to hold women down.

I dropped out of college so you have to agree with me now

[Galloism]

I mean, all you had to read was Ce saying that they went to college and became a self admitted radfem to understand why this endeavor is akin to smashing your head into a brick wall and hoping it falls. Those types of organizations are echochambers that only gives them the most biased and negative opinions and ideas.

Also, the irony being that more women attend college than men. Women are more likely to attend something that allows for better opportunity in life and networking than men, when in reality, it should be reverse if you go by Ce's current worldview of men only wanting to hold women down.

I mean, someone has to work the isolation ward. You don't want well meaning but less informed people infected by the hatred.

[Reploid Productions]

are you guys like actually stupid or are you intentionally wildly misconstruing the nature of the patriarchy because i genuinely cannot tell which one it is
<snip>
you people are genuinely are so fucking sick in the head
<snip>
every time one of you posts, i become just a little bit more misandrist as it becomes more and more terrifyingly clear to me how genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy men are when confronted with issues that affect anyone other than other men.

- gallo deciding groups cannot count as parties because he has no fucking idea how to comprehend any social unit at a higher level of organization than the individual, and possibly deciding to make even more of a clown out of himself by arguing that men are historically oppressed

*sigh* I'll remind you once again to review the site rules, but at this point I'm not terribly optimistic it will do much to improve your conduct.

*** Cekoviu, 2-week ban for flaming/trolling given prior history. ***

~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Kowani]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

[Sundiata]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Oh no.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

equality in misery, I suppose.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Based, women get to finally see how glorious the patriarchy is and die in droves with us in the upcoming water wars!

[Stellar Colonies]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Oh great, the polar opposite of what we should be doing.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

About blasted time!

No equality in rights without an equality in duties, no equality in duties without an equality in rights!

Hopefully this will manage to get through the Senate proper without being mangled.

[Vassenor]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Oh great, the polar opposite of what we should be doing.

Agreed, but if it does have to exist then everyone should be subject to it.

[Galloism]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

In the strictest sense, should this pass, it's better than the status quo.

But it would be better if no one had to register at all.